It was recently observed that Ron Paul was to the left of Obama on national security and the best evidence for that statement can be found when one year ago Ron Paul joined forces with Barney Frank​ on a proposal to gut national defense via a panel of experts, quite a few of whom were tied to George Soros​.

In July 2010, Barney Frank and Ron Paul co-authored a Huffington Post article rolling out their Sustainable Defense Task Force. The Task Force consisting of experts on military expenditures that span the ideological spectrum would recommend a trillion dollars in defense cuts. The experts, however, didnt quite span the ideological spectrum  more like float under it.

The panel of experts who would decide how to best gut national defense featured such independent thinkers as William D. Hartung of the New America Foundation. Hartungs main expertise was appearing in Hijacking Catastrophe: 9/11, Fear & the Selling of American Empire.

Then there was Lawrence J. Kolb of the Center for American Progress and Miriam Pemberton of the Institute for Policy Studies. If you want to know what the Center, the Foundation and the Institute all have in common, its Hungarian and smells like stale cabbage and the death of nations.

The rather creepy Institute for Policy Studies issued a paper proposing that Obama act as king and rule through executive orders. The New American Foundation is not only backed by Soros but has his son on its leadership council. The Center for American Progress is run by the co-chair of Obamas transition team and is, for all intents and purposes, the think tank of the White House. All three are Soros funded.

But it doesnt end there. Also on the panel was Christopher Hellman of the National Priorities Project (NPP). If you are wondering what the NPP is, its a think tank whose objective is to influence national spending priorities. And if youre in the mood for a double, Miriam Pemberton is also on the board of the NPP. The man behind the curtain at NPP? None other than our favorite Hungarian James Bond villain.

Going further down the list theres Winslow Wheeler of the Center for Defense Information (CDI). The CDIs goal is to strengthen national and international security through international cooperation [and] reduced reliance on unilateral military power to resolve conflict. CDI operates under the aegis of the World Security Institute, which is apparently the least creepy name they could think of. Wheeler is a Counterpunch contributor, a site which even Stalinists think goes a bit too far. CDI gets money from the Open Society Institute (OSI) where the stench of death and stale cabbage never goes away.

Then theres Charles Knight and Carl Conetta of the Project for Defense Alternatives, which appears to be a subset of the Commonwealth Institute. Of its board of directors, S.M. Miller is also the founder of United for a Fair Economy which enjoys generous support from a certain philanthropic chap who occasionally destroys economies for sport. Another member, Guy Molyneux, has also worked with OSI. A third board member, Richard Healey, was formerly director of the Institute for Policy Studies and is on the advisory board of the Center for Social Inclusion, founded by two OSI veterans.

If you think this cant get any worse, meet Paul Kawika Martin of Peace Action (PA). You might know PA better by its old name, the Committee for a SANE Nuclear Policy or just SANE, a Communist front group investigated by none other than Senator Thomas Dodd. PA has the same attitude toward American defense that burglars have toward alarm systems in other peoples homes. They dont like them very much. And they have a five year strategic plan for the job.

Paul Kawika Martin travels around fighting progress on board The Rainbow Warrior and is also involved with Physicians for Social Responsibility. Martin has also collaborated with the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), a front for the Iranian regime. I think you can guess by now who funds Physicians for Social Responsibility.

Also on the task force is Laicie Olson of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. The Center is actually a subset of the Council for a Livable World. Olson originally worked for Physicians for Social Responsibility. Another task force member was Heather Hurlburt of the National Security Network (NSN). The NSNs goals are to build a strong progressive national security and counter conservative spin. Its founder was part of Obamas transition team and resigned to work for Janet Napolitano. Soross OSI helped fund NSN, and its Special Counsel was on the NSN Policy Committee. If youre tired of reading through all this, then heres the summary. Of the Paul-Frank Task Force, 9 out of 14 members were linked to Soross organs. Two were affiliated with the Cato Institute. One is indeterminate. Ron Paul proposed to put a bunch of Soros-funded think tank experts in charge of dismantling the US military. Think about that for a moment. Ron Paul supporters can see conspiracies in a glass of water; can they see anything wrong with this picture? Can they see anything wrong with having a man from a group that was investigated for its Communist ties in the drivers seat on national defense? The task forces proposals included cutting nuclear deterrence; reducing the fleet by 57 ships, including two carriers; canceling the Joint Strike Fighter; severely curtail missile defense  and that is a direct quote from the report  retiring four Marine battalions; reducing the military by 200,000 personnel; cutting defense research spending by 50 billion over ten years; and increasing health care fees for members of the military. Not only did Paul join forces with Barney Frank to slash military preparedness, but he ended up putting the experts of a foreign billionaire with global ambitions in charge of the project. And that was what he did as a congressman. Can anyone imagine what he would do as president?

But why would Ron Paul allow George Soros that much power and influence over Americas defense policy? There are a number of possibilities. There is the possibility that Ron Paul just didnt know and didnt bother to do his research. Which is not much of a recommendation for the job hes running for. Theres another possibility that Ron Paul knew and didnt care, that he had no objection to being part of a left-right alliance against the American Empire with Soros. But theres also a third possibility. During the previous election, Americans Against Escalation in Iraq (AAEI) ran an ad praising Ron Paul for his position against the war. AAEI was an umbrella group for MoveOn.org, the Center for American Progress, SEIU, Americans United For Change, the National Security Network and others in the progressive bestiary. A number of those beasties were Soros groups. Im not one to dabble in conspiracy theories, but when Soros pays for an ad praising you during the Republican primaries and then you put his experts in charge of Americas defense policy, then maybe some questions should be asked.

I tend to me more of an idea guy then a personality guy, so just calling someone a lunatic without pointing out why you think he is a lunatic does little to impress me. Is Paul very wrong on Islam and Iran, yes. I am hoping he changes he views there in light of the beatings he is getting in the media on those issues. Much like Newt walked back is amnesty for illegals. On another thread I said that if Paul sticks with his position that it is OK for Iran to have nukes I will abandon my support of him, in spite of the fact that I agree with him much more then I disagree. Iran can not be allowed nukes, period.

"Perot enabled Clinton to win in 1992 and 1996 by attracting conservative Republicans."

I tell you what, as I see it, it is suicide for the GOP to get behind a RINO like Romney, because if he gets the nomination, I know so many Republicans who will not vote at all or will vote for a third party candidate or will write in their candidate...I even know some who say they will vote for Obama as punishment. Everyone loses and it is ALL the GOP's fault..and they will be finished...not viable any longer.

Paul is an old man set in his ways. He hasn’t changed in any significant way in at least the last 20 years. To wishfully think that he will on such a critical issue as Islam is very unrealistic. If he didn’t get it after 9-11 he never will.

By that statement you might as well say that Dwight Eisenhower was nuts and to the left of Obama, it would make as much sense, based from what you wrote about Ron Paul the only former service member amongst all these chicken hawk’s with their chest puffed out acting like they are the greatest generation!

You’re correct, I just hate to give up on the only small government candidate in the race. The only one that doesn’t just play lip service to the Constitution but actually thinks it really is the supreme law of the land. That buys Paul a lot of good will from me. Plus the country to far to broke to continue to be engaged in nation building wars anymore so most of Pauls’ non interventionist foreign policy will be adopted by necessity. But the Iran nuke thing is just to much to swallow, how can Paul be so stupid. I just don’t understand that.

One could argue the GOP propping up a RINO like Romney deserves all the misery another term of Obama would bring - and that is quite likey to happen, sad to say. People are disgusted with the Grand Ole Party, to say the least...bunch of freakin’ corrupt politicians with nobody’s interest other than their own pocketbooks.

BTW, how did the founding fathers envision a local militia defending against Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles?

Probably the same way they fought undeclared wars against France (the quasi war) and later the Barbary Pirates. Built a defence, in their case create a Navy, reestablish the USMC, and take the fight to the enemy. In Frances case off their coast and the Carribean, the pirates in the Mediterranean. Both wars fought by the founders, undeclared, and fought over trade far from America. Taking the fight to the enemy is an old American tradition, not always followed. And sometimes we make mistakes, which are unrelated to the Constitution or the founders as paulestinians would have us believe.

BTW, how did the founding fathers envision a local militia defending against Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles?

Do we not currently have defensive forces, stationed inside the boundaries of the country to take care of that? Do you think Ron Paul has a problem with the military as present within our own borders? If and when our enemies should ever undertake to put boots on the ground over here . . . well . . let's hope to God our guns have not been confiscated by then, because by then we should have had the blessing of federal powers to assemble and train militias for just such a thing.

BTW, how did the founding fathers envision a local militia defending against Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles? Do we not currently have defensive forces, stationed inside the boundaries of the country to take care of that?

Only with THOUSANDS of OFFENSIVE strategic ballistic missiles. There still is NO OTHER DEFENSE. The ABM sites in Alaska can't handle but a few missiles from such as North Korea. So again, that's a THREAT to other nations. Not a latent militia defense force from the 18th century that is no threat to anyone. Mutually Assured destruction is the policy of the USA right now, and that has worked so far, even though it tends to encourage enemies to "strike first" if they are worried about our stability.

Do you think Ron Paul has a problem with the military as present within our own borders?

He certainly has a problem with the pentagon's budget, mission and scope. Maybe he likes the soldiers though.

If and when our enemies should ever undertake to put boots on the ground over here . . . well . . let's hope to God our guns have not been confiscated by then, because by then we should have had the blessing of federal powers to assemble and train militias for just such a thing.

Actually, spot on that I should mention Killeen. Enemy boots on the ground (just two boots) INSIDE Fort Hood...where ALL these Paul-Approved defensive soldiers who would protect us are stationed...and they are not allowed to carry guns. 13 dead, 29 injured.

Hey! Let's do math!

If there were 21,000 Major Hassan's that our enemies wanted to put boots on our defensive Army bases, well you can calculate 882,000 casualties....decimating the entire active and reserve Army corps.

There's a lot more we can do than to fold our military up as Paul seems to want.

Kinda wondering myself how the founding fathers envisioned dealing with countries that could move nuclear subs off our shores and bomb us everywhere. Put missiles in Cuba and wipe out the east coast.

How the figured that the middle east could control our national interest with their oil reserves, and how another country like china or russia could put more money or manpower on the ground, control those reserves and actually bring us to a standstill over night.

Oh wait a minute .. THEY DIDN’T!

56
posted on 01/03/2012 4:36:19 PM PST
by Munz
(All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.)

Defenses against potential enemies do not necessarily have to be set up in 700 places around the globe. Our forefathers were not blind to threats from foreign entities. While they may not have envisioned modern warfare, they certainly did not envision build a worldwide empire as if the whole world was waiting with open arms for Western ideals.

Only with THOUSANDS of OFFENSIVE strategic ballistic missiles. There still is NO OTHER DEFENSE. So again, that's a THREAT to other nations. (The ABM sites in Alaska can't handle but a few missiles from such as North Korea. )

There. I rearranged for better clarity! The thousands of offensive missiles are a threat. Mutually Assured Destruction is a threat.

And some argue that a completely effective missile defense shield is also in effect a threat because it makes the enemy vulnerable to a first strike without being able to retaliate. It shifts the balance of MAD.

Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country.  Ronald Reagan

60
posted on 01/03/2012 5:30:02 PM PST
by IrishPennant
(We don't want to work so we go to work to make enough money not to work...Huh?)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.